ITAT Chennai Judgments — September 2025

The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed with a significant delay of 539 days and without a condonation petition. Despite multiple notices, there was no representation from the assessee. Therefore, the appeal could not be admitted.

The Tribunal held that authenticated documents like the Tahsildar's certificate and the Dean of Forestry's report cannot be ignored in favor of unverified Google Earth Pro images. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that the assessee claimed to have evidence of charitable activities which could not be furnished earlier. Considering the interest of justice, the ITAT remitted both matters (registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G(5)) back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present all relevant documents and clarify its objectives and activities.

The Tribunal observed that both the AO and CIT(A) orders were passed ex-parte due to assessee's non-compliance. Applying principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for a de novo assessment, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal, as the assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) before the CCIT, Coimbatore, and the delay had been condoned. The impugned order was set aside, and the AO was directed to allow the deduction.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 2 Crores. It noted that Shri Seetharaman had already declared Rs. 2.90 Crores as income for subsequent years related to the loan, and the AO cannot adopt conflicting positions for the same transaction. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee's name was not mentioned in the seized material, making the addition against the assessee untenable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erroneously passed the appellate order by copying and pasting an order from a different assessment year without considering the relevant facts and grounds. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the payments made to ICS, London, for books, examination fees, and license fees were in furtherance of the charitable purpose of education and constituted a valid application of income in India. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was therefore erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the payments made to ICS, London, further the charitable purpose of education and qualify as a valid application of income within India under Section 11(1)(a), as the benefits accrue to Indian students within India. It also found that foreign exchange losses incurred on transactions integral to the educational activities of the trust are allowable. The Tribunal distinguished the assessee's case from precedents where payments were for activities conducted abroad.

The Tribunal held that payments made to ICS, London for examination, exemption, and license fees, along with books, further the charitable purpose of education and constitute a valid application of income within India under Section 11(1)(a). The benefits, both tangible and intangible, accrue within India, distinguishing this case from NASSCOM. Consequently, the foreign exchange loss incurred on these integral educational transactions is also allowable. The AO was directed to entertain and consider any carry forward claim if not originally made.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to present its case and submit necessary details before the CIT(E) to prove the charitable objective of its activities. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the payments made to ICS, London, for examination, exemption, and license fees were in furtherance of the charitable purpose of education and constituted a valid application of income in India. The foreign exchange loss incurred on transactions integral to educational activities was also allowed.

The Tribunal held that the payments made to ICS, London, for examination, exemption fees, and license fees were in furtherance of the charitable purpose of education and constituted a valid application of income within India. The disallowance by the Assessing Officer was found to be erroneous.

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings are separate from assessment proceedings and are not automatic. Citing Section 270A(6)(a) and previous decisions, the Tribunal found that the assessee had a bona fide belief and had disclosed material facts. The debate regarding the existence of a PE, coupled with the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP) settlement, indicated that the issue was debatable, thus not warranting penalty.

The Tribunal found that the entries in the J-Pack software were primarily for inventory control and related to alloy additions and stock movements, not directly reflecting unaccounted income. The Tribunal also noted that certain income items had already been offered to tax by the director and that the AO's estimation of profit was not justified. The tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that while it concurred to some extent with the DR's submissions, it was of the view that the assessee should be granted an opportunity to file submissions and evidence, keeping in mind natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the payment was in the nature of reimbursement of cost allocated and not taxable in India, especially in the absence of the 'make available' element required under the India-UK DTAA for services to be classified as Fee for Technical Services (FTS).

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings and the levy of penalty under Section 270A is not automatic. Considering the debatable nature of the issue and the assessee's bonafide belief, the penalty was not warranted.

The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice, set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to provide all evidence and submissions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay considering the reasons provided and the principles of natural justice. The appeal was restored to the file of the AO for a denovo assessment on merits, subject to a cost.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the reasons provided by the assessee, and restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing on merits, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The assessee was directed to provide all evidence and documents.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80P is admissible only if the return of income is filed within the prescribed due date, relying on a decision of the Madras High Court. As the assessee filed a belated return, the deduction was rightly denied.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment in haste without discussing the 'business expenses' for which the case was selected for limited scrutiny and did not pass a speaking order. The CIT(A) also failed to address issues like the non-service of SCN. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the matter to the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 63 days, considering the explanation provided in the affidavit. On merits, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, citing principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 63 days. While the assessee raised a legal ground that the notice under Section 148 was void and that the land sold was agricultural, they also conceded to non-compliance before the lower authorities. The Tribunal decided to restore the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the 'trade payables' to the director were brought-forward balances, not fresh credits, and thus Section 68 was not applicable. Other 'trade payables' and 'trade receivables' were determined to be genuine business transactions, supported by audited financials and VAT/GST compliances. Consequently, all quantum additions made under Section 68 for both assessment years were deleted. Given the deletion of the quantum additions, the consequential penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2016-17 was also cancelled based on the legal principle 'sublato fundamento deficit opus'.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to present her case before the Assessing Officer, who passed an ex parte order. While the Revenue argued for dismissal, the Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the sale of land by the assessee, considering the sporadic nature of transactions over a long period and the assessee's primary business of manufacturing transformers, did not constitute an adventure in the nature of trade. The surplus arising from the sale was to be treated as capital gain.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, as the appeal was dismissed on grounds of delay without deciding on merits. The assessee is to be given an opportunity to be heard and to provide evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's sporadic land transactions over several years, without any development or continuous pattern, did not amount to an adventure in trade. The surplus arising from the sale of land was to be considered as capital gains.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 216 days considering the facts and circumstances and the assessee's bonafide belief. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the legal issue regarding the reopening of assessment was raised for the first time and had not been raised before the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that a new clause (iv) was inserted into the first proviso to Section 80G(5) by the Finance Act, 2024, allowing applications at any time after commencement of activities. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to consider the application in light of this amended provision.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance should be restricted to 30% under Section 40(a)(ia) as payments were made to residents. Regarding DDT, it was held that DDT is a tax on company profits, not dividend income, and thus the beneficial rate under the DTAA cannot be applied to cap it. Consequently, no refund of excess DDT is allowable.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was incorrect in adding the entire capital gains to the assessee's total income. Only the unutilized amount of capital gains should be added back for taxation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding it was not intentional. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with an undertaking from the assessee to comply with requirements.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding that the assessee's explanations for the sources of investment were not satisfactorily explained. The grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s conclusion regarding the commercial nature of the activity and non-utilization of income for objects was erroneous. It was noted that the activity primarily involved collecting charges to cover costs, with financial records showing expenses exceeding income. The Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that the amounts in question were brought-forward trade payables and receivables from earlier years, not fresh unexplained credits. Since Section 68 of the Act applies only to fresh unexplained credits in the current year, the additions were not justified. The penalty levied based on these additions was also cancelled.

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment and not automatic. Given that the issue of PE was debatable, as evidenced by High Court admission of appeal and the MAP terms where authorities agreed to disagree, the assessee acted on a bonafide belief. Therefore, imposing penalty for under-reporting was not justified.

The Tribunal, considering the pendency of similar issues before the Supreme Court and the favorable decisions in the case of the assessee's major shareholder (ITPO), directed the CIT(E) to grant registration to the appellant, subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision. The appeal was allowed.